SHIV DAYAL DHARAMSHALA TRUST Vs. LEELA DUTT SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER , a Charitable Trust, runs a homeopathic dispensary. It engaged the services of respondent Leela Dutt Sharma as Chikitsak (Homeopathy) for running the dispensary. Respondent was engaged, on part -time basis. According to the respondent, salary settled with him was Rs.3,600/ -, but he used to be paid Rs.1,100/ - only, and when he protested, petitioner started paying him Rs.2,500/ -. Petitioner then closed the dispensary for a few days and ultimately dispensed with the services of the respondent, as per allegations of the respondent.

(2.) MATTER was taken to the Labour Commissioner, who referred the dispute to the Labour Court. Labour Commissioner made the following reference to the Labour Court: Whether the termination of services of Shri Leela Dutt Sharma, S/o Shri Geeta Ram workman by the President, Shri Shiv Dayal Dharamshala Trust (Regd.) Solan, H.P. w.e.f. 13.4.2004 without complying with provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits and amount of compensation the above aggrieved workman is entitled to? - Petitioner contested the claim of the respondent, before the Labour Court. It denied that respondent had been engaged as a workman. It was stated that the petitioner had been running a charitable dispensary and the petitioner used to be paid Rs.1,100/ - as honorarium, in the beginning, and lateron the amount was raised to Rs.2,000/ - plus Rs.500/ -, on account of travelling expenses, for attending patients at their residences (outside the dispensary premises) and that when the respondent stopped visiting the patients, at their places, petitioner stopped paying additional amount of Rs.500/ -, on account of travelling expenses.

(3.) IT has also been denied that the respondent was not a workman, within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the Industrial Disputes Act. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that a professional is not a workman, within the meaning of Section 2(j) of Industrial Disputes Act, as held by the Honble Supreme Court in Muir Mills Unit of N.T.C. (U.P.) Ltd. versus Swayam Prakash Srivastava and another, AIR 2007 SC 519. Honble Supreme Court, vide para -38, has held that a professional can never be termed as a workman under any law. In the present case, when the petitioner itself has taken the plea that the respondent was not authorized to practice in Homeopathic System of Medicine, per Annexure P -11, a letter issued by State Council of Homeopathic System of Medicine, Himachal Pradesh, it does not lie in its mouth to say that the respondent was a professional and as such not a workman. Learned Labour Court was not right in concluding that the wages of respondent were to the tune of Rs.3,600/ -, per month. Respondent, while in the witness -box before the Labour Court, admitted that he used to be paid Rs.1,100/ - per month initially and that when he protested, at the time when wages of other employees were increased, petitioner started paying him at the rate of Rs.2,500/ - per month. Petitioners case is that respondent used to be paid Rs.2,000/ - as honorarium and Rs.500/ -, on account of traveling allowance, for visiting the patients outside the dispensary premises and that when he stopped visiting the patients, petitioner stopped paying him travelling allowance.